A sidenote on an old trend

Do you remember how in the early- to mid-90's it was cool to only open your pop tab (or soda, Coke, whatever you call it), so that you had to suck the drink out? Why was that cool???

I understand that fashion trends usually have absolutely no rhyme or reason, but many other kinds of trends find a following because they move us forward in some way--abbreviated words to hasten conversation or texts, aluminum water bottles to reduce waste, coffee shops to provide a third space, a community.

So why the pop tabs? I suppose it may have been the work of parents looking to minimize spilling...which makes sense considering the age my friends and I were in the early 90's, but that can't be it. It had a certain allure to it. There was something confident about it, despite the fact that you had to pucker your lips funny and make weird noises when drinking. Any insight??

(Photo credit: Flickr- timsamoff) <--props for opening the tab all the way

Progresso Light Soups

I just saw a commercial just now for Progresso Light, creating by Saatchi & Saatchi NY. The 15-second spot features a (presumably) married couple--the man is sitting eating soup, and the woman lightly teases him for "eating light." He comes back saying that it's not light because it's meaty, big chunks of vegetable, etc. She grabs the can and reads "Only 70 calories and endorsed by Weight Watchers? I call that light, big guy." He attempts to protect his manhood with a "Like a big guy light" as she walks by him, humoring him and doting a bit like a mother would a son.

OK, so my question is: where in this does Progresso Light protect itself for the long-term during its subtle teasing of eating light? Wouldn't it be more beneficial for the man to come around to a new way of thinking about light? Or pave the way for men to hop on the "health trend" that is likely keeping this product alive while still preserving their role as strong males? I think there are a number of guys out there who would be much more apt to work out (and I mean cardio, not lifting), eat healthier, or even get pedicures ('cause let's be honest, many of them could definitely benefit from a little love on the feet) if they were shown a way to do it without undermining their testosterone. No man wants to open himself up to the slight ribbing that is the constant undertone of this advertisement.

Now, if their target was women, hoping they'll buy it for their guys, well then hell, I think they did a perfect job of showing women what they want to see. Their guy being healthy, and her getting to take pride (and be a bit smug) about it. Teasing with no backlash, just a healthier partner. Not bad...if that was the point, great job Saatchi. But otherwise, I think Progresso missed a great opportunity to support their line for years to come.

Fashion Magazines- The New Frontier?

I've been rendered useless for the past half-week by sickness, so I apologize for the lack of updates. It did, however, give me a chance to watch some TV and read some magazines, something I probably ought to do more of as an advertiser.

Besides learning that I'm in love with 30 Rock and/or Tina Fey, I also realized something unique about fashion magazines. You actually want to look at the ads. That's pretty much the POINT of fashion magazines. Sure, there's always an interview with a fashionable star, and there's always a few beauty tips and "good buy" kinds of pieces, but for the most part, its ads, and you look at every single page.  I started thinking about how brands could use this to their advantage. Of course, there are some things that they'd have to keep in mind.

First, as with any "community" you decide to join, you have to understand their ways. Ads in fashion magazines are always:

     -beautiful, 

     -simple (not a lot of words, etc), 

     -and emotional. 

They don't hard sell you, they just bring you into that moment. Word-heavy, rational benefit kinds of ads stick out like a sore thumb.

Second, there has to be a brand fit. Cheez-its will never be a strong fit in a fashion magazine. They just won't. But Apple, with their focus on sleek design, might. The same goes for BMW.

Third, the ad has to be beautiful in it's own right. You can't just imitate the way fashion brands design their ads. You can't put Cheez-its in the hands of a woman wearing a beautiful avant-garde dress--it will instead look like a parody. You have to find a way to make your product beautiful the same way clothing brands showcase their products. 

Microsoft, cont.

Alright, so I was highly disappointed by the new Seinfeld/Gates spot--at 4 minutes and 30 seconds, it did very little to keep my attention. I'm not sure if it was intended for online or if it bought an entire block of commercial time (which is at the very least an interesting media buy,) but either way, I was bored and I don't see Seinfeld and Gates "connecting" with people by being kicked out of the house by the family. It just didn't feel thought through. I liked the first teaser spot, but this didn't seem to know where it was headed.

On the flip side, I enjoyed the new "I'm a PC" ads. At first, when I read about their existence, I thought it was a pretty terrible idea. You often come off like an angry, spurned lover if you respond directly to competitors ads (Evidence- much of the bad political advertising out there.) However, these were tastefully done for the most part, and in an industry where Microsoft has the majority share of market but none of the buzz, it was good to be reminded that there are still people out there using PCs. When I watch the Apple ads, I think, "Yeah, that seems about right." But watching these ads, these people felt believable too. I think Microsoft covered a lot of ground with these ads, coming from a pretty lame reputation to a believable, every-day-person reputation. Some of them were even pretty cool (SHARKS!)

So, good job this time around guys, but please, follow-through on your strategies, and maybe keep it to just ONE strategy. (That may be my lack of experience talking, but at least for now, the Seinfeld/Gates pieces don't feel cohesive with the rest of the campaign, and I don't see the pieces coming being able to come together anytime soon, and consumers aren't very patient.)

EDIT: I haven't figured out yet how to pull videos off youtube to embed in my blog, but here's a link to the spot-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBWPf1BWtkw

Unemployment

It's come to my attention that the emotional responses to unemployment are quite similar to those of grief. To illustrate--the Kubler-Ross model:

Stage One: Denial- "I'm sure they haven't called back because they're totally swamped. Which is good, right? Then they'll for sure need my help. Yeah, I'm sure they'll call back--besides, its only been two months since I interviewed. Maybe they didn't get my thank you card! I should probably write them another one..."

Stage Two: Anger- "This is bullshit, I'm way better than this job, and they offer it to someone right out of undergrad?!? Good luck ever recruiting ME, Nameless-Advertising-Agency! I'd never sink so low to work for someone who doesn't know a good thing when they see it. Absolute bullshit...I never wanted to work for a shit agency like yours anyway!"

Stage Three: Bargaining- "Please, I'll take an internship, anything! I'll even take an account management internship. Hell, I'll work for free if I can just start working. What if I started at an administrative position and worked my way up? Maybe I could start by just answering phones and making copies and stuff? Or maybe I should go back to my Far-Less-Than-Ideal job and beg them to take me back...even though they don't even have planners there. At least I'd be working."

Stage Four: Depression- "What's the point in looking for a job? None of the other places I talked to wanted me anyway. I might as well just go back to waitressing. Or watching endless episodes of The OC."

Stage Five: Acceptance- "It really is just a terrible time to be looking for jobs. Even though I may need to take a menial job to make ends meet, at least I've been making great connections and talking with some really interesting folks. Something will come through eventually, and everything will be ok in the long run."

Of course, one may go from Stage 1 to 5 back to 3 up to 4 and back down to 1 again. But at least we can make some sense of it, and apologize to our friends for our absolutely disgusting behavior. Oh unemployment, you fickle foe...

So creepy...

Just sayin'. But seriously. So creepy.

High Fructose Corn Syrup campaign- comparison with tech industry

So, I saw one of the new commercials for the Corn Refiners Association new campaign, and while the ad itself was painfully hokey (check out the background music and the giggling in "Two Bites,") it actually reminded me of me. I have no idea why high fructose corn syrup is bad. It sounds bad because of the "high," and anything ending in "-ose" always seems suspect when I've learned various nutritional facts, but beyond that, I have no idea. I know people who cut high fructose corn syrup completely out of their diet. But I still don't really know what it's all about.

I went to the website (Success! A commercial that actually drove a consumer to the website) and got a whole lot of information--truthfully, a bit more than I wanted. I did a bit of digging to see where the bad rap may have come from, and this is what I found:

"According to the USDA, high fructose corn syrup accounts for roughly 41% of all caloric (nutritive) sweeteners consumed in the US.

Around the world, high fructose corn syrup accounts for about 8% of all caloric (nutritive) sweeteners consumed."

OK, so sure, high fructose corn syrup isn't any worse than table sugar or honey, but we Americans simply suck at moderation. So while the commercial is just meant to inform that its no different from other caloric sweeteners, it still doesn't change the fact that unless we abstain from SOME of our desires, we're still going to be as obese as ever. HFCS has just unfortunately won the worst reputation, even though it is considered a natural food according to the FDA, no different than honey or sugar.

In terms of the website layout, it was a little information heavy, and could have benefited from more visuals, as it was quite technical and comparisons often had to be made by crossing from one page to the next and back again. It also goes back to the discussion of Apple--I don't care if HFCS is made up of HFCS-55 and HFCS-42, I just want to know what that means for me. The one cool bit about the site: there's a FAQ section on all artificial sweeteners, so I got to learn more about sweeteners, the alternatives, etc.